Phil midterm 2

Question 1

3 views of testimony

Answer 1

Reductionism, non-reductionism, scepticism

Question 2

Testimony

Answer 2

The process of acquiring beliefs from communication

Question 3

reductionism

Answer 3

-Unlike sceptics, reductionists think that testimony produces knowledge, but the way in which testimony produces knowledge is explainable in other terms
-we can understand testimony in terms of memory, perception, and inference
-global vs. local reductionism- generic vs. specific

Question 4

example of reductionism

Answer 4

you may have noticed that a speaker has provided you with truth in the past

you may then infer that a claim of theirs is true and come to believe it

testimony is not playing special role, you belief is primarily based on inference and perception

Question 5

non-reductionism

Answer 5

-non-reductivists think that you can rationally accept testimony as long as the testifier is in a good enough position
-lack defeaters
-testimony yields knowledge and it does so in a distinctive manner
-hold that testimony is a basic source of knowledge

Question 6

scepticism

Answer 6

-testimony never yields knowledge
-certainty is a necessary condition of knowledge and it never produces certainty

Question 7

defeaters

Answer 7

• a claim that renders a belief false or unreliable
  -ex. if you believe something because you read it in a book but then later learn that the author is a liar, then your original belief is false or unreliable
  -3 types- doxastic, normative, factual

Question 8

doxastic defeater

Answer 8

-defeaters as actual beliefs
-a claim we believe that defeats one of our other beliefs

Question 9

normative defeaters

Answer 9

-claims we are justified in believing (whether we believe them or not)

Question 10

factual defeaters

Answer 10

-true propositions that would defeat were we to believe them

Question 11

lackeys argument about testimonial knowledge

Answer 11

-she defends the view that testimony is a distinctive source of knowledge
-being a reliable testifier is different that being a reliable believer
-when you come to know something via testimony, you simply believe it is true based directly on their testimony
-hearers acquire knowledge via testimony, speakers must themselves have that knowledge

Question 12

lackeys proposal about testimony

Answer 12

• proposes that both of these thesis are false

-2: if H comes to know that p via S’s testifying that p, then S must know that p.

-2*: For every testimonial chain of knowledge C, in order for a hearer H in C to come to know that p via the testimony of a speaker S in C, at least the first
speaker S1 in C must know that P (in some non-testimonial way).

Question 13

3 views of memory knowledge

Answer 13

inferential theory, foundational theory, preservation theory

Question 14

inferential theory

Answer 14

-our memory is justified by inference
-idea is that in general my memory has proven reliable
-ex. when I remember my name, I succeed in having knowledge of my name because my memory has proven itself
-3 problems- circularity, inference takes times and the inference would have to be repeated every time

Question 15

Inferential theory -problem 1- circularity

Answer 15

-even if my memory has been reliable and I seem to remember it, my own belief that my memory has been reliable has to then be justified itself and its doesn’t seem as if propositions can be self justified

-ex. my memory is generally reliable, I remember that Calgary is south of Edmonton, therefor Calgary is south of Edmonton

Question 16

inferential theory- problem 2- inference takes time

Answer 16

• make an inference
  -notice it took you time to make it
  -you had to remember the premises during the time it took for the inference to take place
  -wont work in the case at hand

ex. it usually snows in January, I have no reason to think this January will be any different, therefor it will snow in January

Question 17

inferential theory- problem 3- inference would have to be repeated every time

Answer 17

-cant just make a general inference that memory is reliable and trust it because I would also have to remember to do that
- I would have to make the inference each time recall something

Question 18

foundational theory

Answer 18

-just having an experience of seeming to perceive that P, makes one justified on the first impression in believing that P, and similarly, having an experience of seeming to remember that P- makes one justified in believing that P
- 1 problem- the mere passage of time can increase justification

Question 19

Foundational theory problem

Answer 19

-the mere passage of time can increase justification
-case 1: I prove a mathematical problem at 2, keep proof of it in my mind at 2:01 and also remember the fact- now I have 2 sources of justification- memory and proof
-case 2: I adopt a belief that happens to be true, the next day I remember that belief and my memory justifies it, so the mere passage of time turns my irrational belief into a rational one

Question 20

preservation theory

Answer 20

• when I remember that P, my justification for believing P is whatever it was to begin with
  -memory just preserves the justification
  -note that forgetting what justifies a belief doesn’t eliminate that beliefs justification
  -1 problem- russels 5 minute hypothesis

Question 21

preservation theory problem

Answer 21

• russels 5 minute hypothesis says:

-5 minutes ago god created someone in exactly the same state I was in 5 minutes ago
-so this person has false memories identical to my genuine memories
-the duplicate lacks justification

Question 22

huemers dualistics theory

Answer 22

• one is justified overall if one had adequate justification for adopting a belief at some point and after that was justified in retaining it
  -avoids foundationalists problem because memory doesn’t create new justification

Question 23

Kitchers argument that scientific knowledge isn’t deductive

Answer 23

-deductive= arguments with valid premises that logically entail the conclusion- if premises are true, then the conclusion must be true

-science is not a body of demonstrated truths. virtually all of science is an exercise in believing what we cannot prove
-makes scientific knowledge seem less secure than we take it to be
-so even if we beleive the premises, the conclusion may not be true, making it not deductive

Question 24

theoretical virtues of scientific knowledge

Answer 24

-testability
-fruitfulness
-scope
-simplicity
-conservatism

Question 25

testability

Answer 25

• requires hypothesis to be testable
  -without testing hypothesis it is hard to see how we could come to know
  -testing requires the existence of confirming evidence and the non-existence of disconfirming evidence
  -ex. after observing that a number of carrot eaters live for a long time, I form the hypothesis that carrots elongate life
  -I can test this by observing the facts about the life span of carrot eaters

Question 26

fruitfulness

Answer 26

-fruitful to the extent that they successfully predict new phenomena
-scientific phenomena aren’t isolated from each other
-ex. imagine we observe people who eat carrots and live in apartments are long lived
-we can then form 2 hypothesis- that carrot eating elongates life and that apartment dwelling elongates life
-the former hypothesis will be more fruitful and more superior

Question 27

scope

Answer 27

• scope of a hypothesis is determined by the amount of diverse phenomena that it explains and predicts
  -greater scope allows us to explain more
  -limited scope ex. carrot eating by those who live on the east coast in the 21st century elongates life
  -greater scope ex. carrot eating elongates life

Question 28

simplicity

Answer 28

-thought is that a simpler hypothesis will better allow us to systematize our knowledge
-when we are evaluating for simplicity we must take everything into consideration (simplicity of objects, relations, explanations)

Question 29

conservatism

Answer 29

-a hypothesis is conservative to the extent that it is consistent with our previous beliefs
-hard to accept a hypothesis if it conflicts with our beliefs

Question 30

a priori

Answer 30

-provides direct, immediate knowledge into necessary truth
-can be justified independently of experience
-beliefs are justified just in case they are good reasons for thinking it is true
-cogency does not come from experience
-does not mean experience is not required to possess the reason
-directness guarantees no other mechanisms are needed
-ex. 1+1=2. blue is a colour

Question 31

a posteriori

Answer 31

• knowledge is dependent upon experience
  -ex. the sun is shining- you would have to experience the sun shining based on sight touch etc… therefor it is a posteriori

Question 32

bonjours argument in favour of a priori knowledge

Answer 32

• bonjour is in favour of a priori knowledge as it provides necessary truths that are unarguable
  -ex. mathematical truths, logical truths,